On 9/10/06, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I would recommend to the editors remove the sentence
> > saying that the XMLNames11 terminology is being used, and instead
> > define their own terminology (keeping the terms as compatible as
> > possible, preferably identical, of course).
>
> This last seems very odd to me, suggesting that the motivation
> is political rather than a desire for clarity. If the authors
> are to use terminology identical to that of XMLNames11, then
> why should they not be open about so doing?
Forcing the editors to define the terms results in the editors being
much more likely to understand the terms, and thus use them correctly.
The examples of misuse given in this thread suggest that the editors
don't currently understand the terms.
If the editors understand the terms then, in this case, it is probably
better to not duplicate the definitions, since they seem relevant and
appropriate, and the XMLNames11 specification is light enough for the
reference to not be an undue burden on the reader.
(Having said that, there are definitely cases where specifications
have reused terminology gratuitously -- and that just causes all kinds
of confusion. IMHO it is not automatically appropriate to reference
other specifications.)
--
Ian Hickson